Turn on thread page Beta

Do you belive in Animal rights watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you belive in Animal rights?
    Yes
    20
    27.78%
    No
    12
    16.67%
    I dont belive in Animals rights but im gainst cruelty to Animals
    40
    55.56%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    It's strange you should mention morals because one of humanity's least desirable traits is that of dictating to others how they should live themselves.
    Firstly, you've sidestepped what I've said, and haven't actually made an objection to it.

    As I don't know what you were trying to do...

    Dictation or guidance? Ethics aims to inform us of what we should do. It does not necessarily dictate what we have to do. Furthermore, I think your assumption that it is a least desirable trait could be questioned. I think you've oversimplified the issue. If I tell you do to X, and X is better for you than Y, then surely my dictation of X to you has served you better than Y. Also, it need not be dictation. If one can see the reason in another's decision, then one can come to believe it and advocate it themselves. We are creatures of reason, so that does not at all seem implausible.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curiouslyorange1989)
    lol fair enough, but in what way does it make a difference? one person not buying meat is hardly bringing down the fast food industry is it? you say your making a difference but your really not, the only way you possibly could make a difference would be by enforcing your view on others, which is why i ask why should people give up meat?
    I think people shouldn't eat meat because of the environmental consequences etc. Also, as someone was moaning about how starving people in Africa are more important, if less meat is eaten, more food is available so food prices would drop, allowing the poorest to be able to buy food.

    However, I don't think you should be forced to not eat meat. It might be good if people should be forced to cut back slightly though?

    And you can say the "one person" thing for anything. Was there no point in standing up for black rights in america, apartheid in south africa, war etc?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildstarchild)
    Whether I think we should ban animals from eating other animals? No I don't think we should ban wild animals from eating animals. Do I think humans should not eat meat, Yes

    Yes, I do realize what It means, which is why I posted it. Humans can survive on plants alone because they're omnivores, animals cant survive on plants alone because they're carnivores.
    Thank God this will never happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Its completely and totally ridiculous for people to say things like:

    If you don't believe that animals have any rights, then why does it matter if they are subjected to cruelty or not? Surely not to be subjected to unnecessary cruelty is a right as much as any other.

    Also, this statement:

    If animals have no rights, what possible objection could you have to humans asserting absolute ownership over them? If animals have no rights then they cannot be considered any different from regular pieces of property.
    If animals have no rights, then hunting them to extinction is not immoral in the slightest, as there would be no moral reason not to. If they have no rights, the word would be 'improvident' not 'immoral'.


    It is simply irrational to deny animals any form of rights. The only difference between us and animals is that we have developed along a different evolutionary path. There is no rational basis that would allow us to accord rights to humans, including physically or mentally handicapped humans, and not animals. Less rights? sure. No rights? You can't justify this and justify giving rights to all humans simultaneously. The sole exception to this is a religious explanation, but I don't think this can be regarded as tenable by most people. There is no other convincing explanation that has ever been put forward.


    And by spending money on your internet connection to post this on TSR, along with eating luxury food, going to football matches and whatever else you spend your money on, are directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people because you are not using your money to help those in poverty. Also, the government is directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people when it invests in the roads or in public services. What a totally ridiculous statement to make.
    lol hunting to extinction is immoral regardless of animal rights because it damages OUR enviroment and Harms US as humans....
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DirtyHarry)
    Thank God this will never happen.
    Haha I second that opinion. Meat ftw!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Miss-Brightside*)
    Well obviously it's a deeper problem. It's not about giving money, it's about ensuring that they get the help they need. At what point did I say AIDs? And yes, through education that is preventable.

    You're being extreme and very absurd. Stop eating meat?? Come off it. And wearing animal fur? Wow, so the majority of people own fur coats and things? And again, the farming/organic stuff is not economically viable.

    Oh yes, lets allow human's to die so fur coats don't exist anymore!

    So how are we are individuals giving money to a charity going to help exactly? Ofcourse it helps but it's not going to go this deep, sadly. It's not preventable. Education may help to reduce the amount of women who have unprotected sex (not likely, how many people in this country depsite the amount of sex ed we get still think they can't get pregnant from the withrawal method...) but education is not going to stop spread though intrevenous drug use, or through rape.

    Err if you don't agree with me don't do it. I don't really recall telling to do it. It's just the contribution I feel I should make as apart of this planet - as I've previously said, I believe all beings have an equal right to live on this earth.

    Yes cos stopping wearing fur really kills humans doesn't it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Miss-Brightside)
    Oh yes, lets allow human's to die so fur coats don't exist anymore!
    So if we stop killing animals for fur, humans die? Sorry how does that make sense. What are humans going to die from if we stop making fur coats Hypothermia?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curiouslyorange1989)
    lol you have to take the comment within reason, im sure a kiddie-fiddler likes children but it doesnt make what he does acceptable.

    however i would argue that eating meat and wearing animals is not morally reprehensible and that my fondness for such activites justifies my continued practice of them...
    haha i was going to use that analogy, but I thought it may be in bad taste or get ripped to shreds.
    But the point is you could get away with anything talking like that.
    A paedophile may not see anything wrong with touching kids.
    However we know its preying on the innocent.
    Just like some of us think cruelty to animals is preying on the innocent.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but just because you find something to be ethically ok doesn't make it justifiable to everyone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    I think people shouldn't eat meat because of the environmental consequences etc. Also, as someone was moaning about how starving people in Africa are more important, if less meat is eaten, more food is available so food prices would drop, allowing the poorest to be able to buy food.

    However, I don't think you should be forced to not eat meat. It might be good if people should be forced to cut back slightly though?

    And you can say the "one person" thing for anything. Was there no point in standing up for black rights in america, apartheid in south africa, war etc?
    populist causes both of them so neither were ONE person doing anything. The idea of animal rights has been banging around for ages but its never going to gain the support to achieve its frankly stupid aims.

    The only good thing it has acheived is to make people more aware of animal welfare, as the industry has suggested this is the best way forward, a phasing out of the more wasteful cruelties, but an acceptance that some suffering is nessacary for the benifit of the human species...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I personally think the only thing humans should not do to animals is make them extinct, everything apart from that is okay in my book. Laws against animal cruelty are handy for picking up on psychopaths before they progress to harming humans, though, and apparently meat tastes better if the animal had a calm life and death.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    lol hunting to extinction is immoral regardless of animal rights because it damages OUR enviroment and Harms US as humans....
    It wouldn't be immoral. Just very stupid. You completely missed the point of that tiny bit of the post you chose to address.

    The idea of animal rights has been banging around for ages but its never going to gain the support to achieve its frankly stupid aims.

    The only good thing it has acheived is to make people more aware of animal welfare
    How can you possibly care about animal welfare and yet deny animals any rights at all? Its completely contradictory: if animals have no rights at all, there is no reason to give two monkeys about their welfare, because we have accepted that there is no justification for protecting their welfare as we have not given them any rights.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Miss-Brightside*)
    Haha I second that opinion. Meat ftw!
    So you're not as keen to help the "starving African children" as you make out then. You are all for helping them, as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    So you're not as keen to help the "starving African children" as you make out then. You are all for helping them, as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.
    ha, hit the nail on the head there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Any way I'm offline now, so I'll have to reply to anything later.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doublereedfreak)
    haha i was going to use that analogy, but I thought it may be in bad taste or get ripped to shreds.
    But the point is you could get away with anything talking like that.
    A paedophile may not see anything wrong with touching kids.
    However we know its preying on the innocent.
    Just like some of us think cruelty to animals is preying on the innocent.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but just because you find something to be ethically ok doesn't make it justifiable to everyone.
    lacking an external and objective fountain of morality (religion being in decline these days) can we not say that society is the font of all ethics? that whatever the majority deems as acceptable is the fabric of modern morality?

    if that is the case then i am justified in my actions because lets face it, eating meat is acceptable, and so is wearing leather...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm. I believe that the rights of Animals(and indeed humans) should be handed down by nature and evolution. Not some awarding body or animal rights.

    I believe that animals do not reserve the right not to be eaten, if they are lower down in the food chain and are unable to defend themselves against predators. And that extends to humans including myself. If a lion wants to have me for lunch then I don't think I reserve the right not to be eaten if the lion takes his opportunity and I am unable to defend myself. Such is nature, life and death.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    It wouldn't be immoral. Just very stupid. You completely missed the point of that tiny bit of the post you chose to address.


    How can you possibly care about animal welfare and yet deny animals any rights at all? Its completely contradictory: if animals have no rights at all, there is no reason to give two monkeys about their welfare, because we have accepted that there is no justification for protecting their welfare as we have not given them any rights.
    If we define morality by its origional concept, ie applying to humans, we see that causing extinction is immoral, in that it harms us as a species, and so is comprable to smacking someone in the face (in terms of morals).

    as i previously mentioned unnessacary cruelty is a reflection upon the perpetrator. It exposes and even encourages a wasteful or sadisitic streak in the individual, which is not the benifit of society as a whole
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    lacking an external and objective fountain of morality (religion being in decline these days) can we not say that society is the font of all ethics? that whatever the majority deems as acceptable is the fabric of modern morality?

    if that is the case then i am justified in my actions because lets face it, eating meat is acceptable, and so is wearing leather...
    You seem to be under the misguided impression that animal rights would mean it wouldn't be possible to eat them or wear leather. Not at all. Human rights don't stop us from going into Iraq and killing people, but noone would deny that Iraqis have rights.

    The idea that there is some universality to human rights is gaining ground. Society is based on humans, humans are based on evolution and are homogeneous enough for rights like non-torture and non-genocide at least to be considered universal (which they currently are), and other rights are gaining ground, as their denial can only be based on the exertion of power by a tiny minority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curiouslyorange1989)
    lacking an external and objective fountain of morality (religion being in decline these days) can we not say that society is the font of all ethics? that whatever the majority deems as acceptable is the fabric of modern morality?

    if that is the case then i am justified in my actions because lets face it, eating meat is acceptable, and so is wearing leather...
    The majority of the nazi's thought mass genocide was acceptable does that mean we have a right to wipe out complete races?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildstarchild)
    The majority of the nazi's thought mass genocide was acceptable does that mean we have a right to wipe out complete races?
    and at the time im sure they thought they were morally justified, however we consider such behaviour immoral and abhorrant and thus by our standards (and the fact we have the power to enforce our moral stance) it IS currently immoral.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.